I hadn't heard about this one until today. Apparently there are plans to calm traffic and make this already 25mph relatively low volume street 'safer' for peds and cyclists. (I am venting here, so my comments are not well considered, bear with me)
This street runs N-S and is used by college students frequently. Currently it is two farily wide lane (total) with a wide bike lane on each side. Bike lanes are dashed 20ft. before intersections. There are posts on curb with buttons for cyclists to press to activate traffic signals. I ride this road fairly frequently and know that for each intersection the inductive sensors work for bikes. There are often a quite a number of student type cyclist on this road and peds on sidewalk. Sense of safety appears quite good as many of these cylists ride 2-3 abreast (2 legal) and many wrong way. I have never been close passed, never seen excessive speed. It by far one of the more leisurely roads to cycle on as it is.
This is the early stages of plan (focused on data collection):
http://www.tempe.gov/tim/PDFs/College%20Ave%2012.05.06%20.pdf
Note pages 12-18 of presentation showing examples of what was done on a similar 25mph street. Designed in door zones.
The worst being page 18 'Choker' where the bike lanes becomes a raised sidewalk for 20', just before an intersection. Disgraceful.
I provided my comments already to the online form:

Perception: Very safe to bicycle on. So much so it encourages wrong way riding.
[my] Use: Bicycling
[in] Favor [of improvements]: No
Concerns: That improvement money should go to real problem streets like Southern, etc.
ProblemAreas: Too may wrong way cyclists. Bike Lanes should end 100' before intersection to encourage cyclist to line up with cars instead of to their right where they can be right hooked. 'Bicycle crossing' buttons on curb also encourage this unsafe positioning.

My comments were limited by space. I was not aware of scope of project berfore I made my comments.

My venting boils down to why all this focus on streets already fine to cycle.walk on when there is a network of roads that are so much worse. Way to much focus on making unneeding improvements to backstreets and ways instead of more direct routes.

Al

There is a writeup in yesterday's NYT Sunday Magazine about using artmurals on the traffic intersection as a way of traffic calming. Of course, this experiment is being done in Cambridge, MA, so YMMV. They've just undergone formal testing to see how effective this is...

What is the purpose of that sidewalk protrusion? It almost looks like a ramp up to the sidewalk but why?

I'm guessing that Southern is an arterial, or a common shortcut to avoid a busy arterial intersection?

What is the purpose of that sidewalk protrusion? It almost looks like a ramp up to the sidewalk but why?

I'm guessing that Southern is an arterial, or a common shortcut to avoid a busy arterial intersection?

The idea is to create a narrow spot to choke traffic. But in the designers mind traffic doesn't include bicycles, so they get ramped up next to the choke point. Notice the wrong way cyclist in the photo too.
Southern is an arterial. The stretch I most often ride has NOLs and lots of traffic as overflow from freeway. I think it should have sharrows and/or 'cyclist may use full lane' type signs.

Anyway, my whole point is that this road doesn not need traffic calming. If there are any safety problems it is due to cyclists breaking laws and not riding predictable with the flow of traffic. I most often use the full lane on this road today as the bike lane is a mess of wrong way and swervy cyclists, joggers, etc. (the sidewalk is fine to walk on too) I wonder who came up with the hairbrained idea this road needs improvement. Yes, beautification maybe and perhaps thats where the $ comes from marketed as traffic calming.
Al

My venting boils down to why all this focus on streets already fine to cycle.
Al

The newest bike lane in my town (we have three now) is on a 20mph downtown street... *sigh*

I am with you, Al. Why don't they ever calm high-speed free merges and diverges, instead?

Good luck Al,

http://www.tempe.gov/tim/CollegeAveStreetscape.htm

o report a hazardous road/bike path condition (eric_iwersen@tempe.gov) call (480) 350-8284

http://www.tempe.gov/tim/PDFs/collegeavenueprojects.pdf

Thank you for submitting the following information:
perception: A safe road to no where.
Use: Bicycling
Favor: No
Concerns: We don't need them. Spend money on Southern.
ProblemAreas: During normal bussiness. Close down College during normal bussiness days.
Comments: How many bicycle/ped. accidents/deaths have happened on this legal street when laws obeyed? How many on your other suggested improvements? Is Southern safer than College? How about Baseline? The only option you have for college is to shut it down from motor-vehicle traffic. Because it is 96 percent safe already.

I think its kind of funny watching the evolution of traffic calming, we used to have speed bumps where cyclists could use the small break in the bump and motorists were expected to take the bump in full but would often try and take advantage of the break in the bump creating a potential for conflict with cyclists. Then we speed humps where everyone had to deal with the bump and now we get this choker where only the cyclist gets the bump.

Most traffic calming devices work best when cyclists are mixed in with motor traffic and very few work with a separate bike lane (at least for the non casual cyclists.) FWIW I personally do not have strong objections to speed tables (a gentler speed hump) and they can work with bike lanes. It does appear to me that they are trying to finance a streetscape with TE money and as such I would encourage you in AZ to get the email address of the project coordinator and email a more detail list of what might be acceptable and things that are not acceptable. They probably want bulb-outs and medians to plant trees in so if they can get some ideas on how to do that without inconveniencing cyclists that would help. Public involvement is not just about complaining what doesn’t work but also encouraging things that do work. For example in the On-street parking with bulb-outs it would be better for the cyclist of the bike lane was outside the door-zone but where to get the extra width? Look at the useless center median, that width could be used to create deeper parking bays so the bike lane would be outside the door zone.

Also this http://www.tempe.gov/traffic/trafmgnt.htm lists a choker as having minor impact on speed reduction and “minor” constraint to cyclists. I also think it’s sort of funny that the picture shows a garbage can in the extra width sidewalk area showing how well it works (that is until a pedestrian and a cyclist try and use the remaining space.)

Its strange how these things just come out of nowhere. I pay close attention to activities of a couple cycling advocacy groups, go to meetings here and there, am subscribed to the city mail list, etc.
I didn't hear about the Dec-5 meeting for this until after it happened.
I suspect it is because it was a neighborhood meeting, only those in the vicinity are invited. Same thing happened when they put a ped/cycle freeway bridge near my hood, i was invited, but those outside the area didn't hear about it.
That makes sense in a way, they get local input first then open up for wide input via email, etc.
wheel - good to hear you feel similarly about this as me. I'm fine with beautification projects, fine with leaving the bike lanes as they are, but am very concerned about adding traffic calming that in effect makes it more dangerous and/or tedious to cycle thru.
As to what is acceptable and not, I am pretty sure they are gonna follow the 5th street model, which the city touts as a great sucess, but has all these in cyclist annoyances and dangers built in. I'll find out.
This is what was done on 5th and on 13th street - take a close look at before and after pics:
http://www.tempe.gov/tim/5thStreet.htm
http://www.tempe.gov/tim/13thStreet.htm

For example - Before:
http://www.tempe.gov/tim/photogallery/web5th%20and%20Hardy%20Before.jpg
After:
http://www.tempe.gov/tim/photogallery/web5th%20and%20Hardy%20After.jpg

Al

Maybe traffic does go too fast on that road during the hours you aren't there and the residents are asking for the traffic calming. Maybe it has nothing to do with the cycling on that street.

By the way, I prefer the after picture above. It may not be as good for cycling but it's a lot nicer for walking and for living. It looks like it would keep a lot of cars away and make things quieter and more pleasant. I would sacrifice any perceived macho take-the-lane cycling advantage for a quieter street to live on any day. But that's just me.

Maybe traffic does go too fast on that road during the hours you aren't there and the residents are asking for the traffic calming. Maybe it has nothing to do with the cycling on that street.

By the way, I prefer the after picture above. It may not be as good for cycling but it's a lot nicer for walking and for living. It looks like it would keep a lot of cars away and make things quieter and more pleasant. I would sacrifice any perceived macho take-the-lane cycling advantage for a quieter street to live on any day. But that's just me.
I've ridden thru this street all times of the week, including rush hour (its how I get to my LBS after work). Its just not that busy. If there is a speeding problem (which I have never witnessed), why not instead spend a part of the $5M+ this is going to cost for better enforcement of the already exisiting 25mph limit?

If the goal is to make things pretty, then all that is needed is to remove the power lines, repave and re-stripe the road in the same manner as it was before and repair the broken parts of the sidewalk and remove the trash cans. Yes that costs money, but don't call it what it isn't.

I can not believe you would rather cycle in the after, that is without question a sure way to get right hooked, being in a bikelane/sidepath like that. What if you are going straight or left, would you use the bikepath-thing?

I'm fine if they want to pretty up the street, but to partly sell it as cycling improvement is misguided and frankly sickening considering how many other streets in the area truly need cycling improvements such as wide lanes. The problem is worsened by so called cycling advocates who can't think critically and instead drool at the thought of any bike facility eye candy instead of considering the bigger picture - resources are not unlimited.

Al

In the link you provided for the 5th Street changes, you can tell by the results section what the ultimate goals were, and they have nothing to do with cycling advocacy, but I'd be surprised if cycling-designated funds were NOT used for this project. The only measured result from the changes was a decrease in automobile traffic along this street, probably only temporary until people realize the construction is done and that there's smooth fast pavement now.

In the link you provided for the 5th Street changes, you can tell by the results section what the ultimate goals were, and they have nothing to do with cycling advocacy, but I'd be surprised if cycling-designated funds were NOT used for this project. The only measured result from the changes was a decrease in automobile traffic along this street, probably only temporary until people realize the construction is done and that there's smooth fast pavement now.
Correct. I understand this, but the purpose of the project is stated as
"traffic calming and pedestrian/bicycle improvements"
Al

Correct. I understand this, but the purpose of the project is stated as
"traffic calming and pedestrian/bicycle improvements"
Al

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound like I was telling you something you did not know. I am in agreement with your sentiments about the project and just adding some commentary.

We have a similar road here in Colorado. The road is 20th Ave in Lakewood. Relatively quiet but they decided to put a chocker with a chicane in it. The real problem is that they expect cyclists to use the side path but it's a rather narrow 8 feet and, the real issue, this is at the bottom of a screaming hill where I can easily hit 40 mph...and I can go through the chocker/chicane at that speed which the cars can't. I just follow the road through the whole mess like I would for any traffic calming situation.

Ultimately your safety is up to you. If you don't want to do a curb jump (which that elevated section looks like) don't do it. Ride through like a vehicle. Perhaps that's what you should tell the traffic planners. Actually talking with the engineers may be your best bet. Some of them are just unaware of the issues for us cyclists. They just need educating.

To address wrong-way cycling, how about pushing to have posted the official MUTCD "Wrong Way - Ride with Traffic" signs (R5-1b and R9-3c here (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003/part9/fig9b-02_longdesc.htm))? On the opposite side, of course, which has the advantage of not being already cluttered with signage, and it could be affixed to the opposite side of an existing normal sign.

To address wrong-way cycling, how about pushing to have posted the official MUTCD "Wrong Way - Ride with Traffic" signs (R5-1b and R9-3c here (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003/part9/fig9b-02_longdesc.htm))? On the opposite side, of course, which has the advantage of not being already cluttered with signage, and it could be affixed to the opposite side of an existing normal sign.
Such exact signs are posted on the back of bike lane signs on a parallel street.
I don't see the wrong way riding on this (not the parallel street) to be that big a deal really, main 'problem' during pleasant days/weekends are cyclist turning weaving across street in a casual riding style, friends seeing each other and turning around, groups of kids recreating on bikes up and down the street, students riding on and off sidewalk in both directions. A causal atmosphere indicative of the existing lack of fear of fast dense cars. This atmosphere perhaps is not so loose during rush hour, but thats mainly cause the cyclist riding at that time are going places.
Al

I've ridden thru this street all times of the week, including rush hour (its how I get to my LBS after work). Its just not that busy...
I can not believe you would rather cycle in the after, that is without question a sure way to get right hooked, being in a bikelane/sidepath like that. What if you are going straight or left, would you use the bikepath-thing?

How would I possibly get right-hooked if it's just not that busy? Did you ever consider that at an intersection all you need to do is stop at the stop sign and look the other vehicles in the eye? I have personally found in every community which has bicycle-specific accomodations like this that the cars always wave me through. Always. With a smile, too. They'll even back up their cars for me.

Since it's not busy on this street there would be no issue making a left turn. Simply ride catty-corner out of the path. Going straight simply go straight out of the path. It's really not complicated at all.

On a street like this you can let your 8 year old kid ride his/her bike to school unaccompanied. On the previous incarnation you would not dare. Until bike commuting is considered an adult activity you can expect accomodations to be built in residential neighborhoods in ways that improve property values, improve livability and benefit families with children. Not adult club riders. Get used to it.

Its strange how these things just come out of nowhere. I pay close attention to activities of a couple cycling advocacy groups, go to meetings here and there, am subscribed to the city mail list, etc.
I didn't hear about the Dec-5 meeting for this until after it happened.
I suspect it is because it was a neighborhood meeting, only those in the vicinity are invited. Same thing happened when they put a ped/cycle freeway bridge near my hood, i was invited, but those outside the area didn't hear about it.
That makes sense in a way, they get local input first then open up for wide input via email, etc.
wheel - good to hear you feel similarly about this as me. I'm fine with beautification projects, fine with leaving the bike lanes as they are, but am very concerned about adding traffic calming that in effect makes it more dangerous and/or tedious to cycle thru.
As to what is acceptable and not, I am pretty sure they are gonna follow the 5th street model, which the city touts as a great sucess, but has all these in cyclist annoyances and dangers built in. I'll find out.
This is what was done on 5th and on 13th street - take a close look at before and after pics:
http://www.tempe.gov/tim/5thStreet.htm
http://www.tempe.gov/tim/13thStreet.htm

For example - Before:
http://www.tempe.gov/tim/photogallery/web5th%20and%20Hardy%20Before.jpg
After:
http://www.tempe.gov/tim/photogallery/web5th%20and%20Hardy%20After.jpg

Al


The after pictures is just right hook collision waiting to happen. Personally I preffer the before picture. At least you have a choice of taking a lane so that someone won't turn in to you.

I can not believe you would rather cycle in the after, that is without question a sure way to get right hooked, being in a bikelane/sidepath like that. What if you are going straight or left, would you use the bikepath-thing?
Al


Agreed.

Looks like you're going to have to travel below ten miles per hour on that bike lane and come to a full stop at each corner to make sure the cars don't right hook you. The new bike lane is a sidewalk extention and should be treated like riding a sidewalk.

It might be a good idea to buy the Take A Look mirror so you'll be able to see the traffic behind.

How would I possibly get right-hooked if it's just not that busy?

Here's why you'll get right hooked.

Without you in the picture, the motorist will drive faster to that corner. Since you are off to the side, he may not see you because he'll be distracted by the stop sign while scanning for other traffic.

I'm not speaking out in favor of that design. That degree of traffic separation on a low speed street truly seems excessive in design.

however, for some twisted reason, that is the OVERbuilding of facilties that may lead to less extensive yet suitable bike lanes and accomodations on the artertials in your area, Al.

Does any of the rest of the community have bikelanes on along high speed arterials? and how about on low speed streets, Al?

Projects like this have some utility like Diane mentions. Just because club racers and high speed transportationalists are constrained somewhat in an incredibly miniscule percentage of roads like this in a city, the rest of the community is advantaged by the improvements.

This level of overbuilt street design has the potential to carry over to greater accomodations of lesser curb and stripe across Al's community in the future. this may be a slightly stilted step towards greater accomdation across the region more suited to high speed, high mileage, hardcore transportational bicyclists like Al.

If these are one or two projects across your metropolis that are in conjunction with improvements in the community, so be it. the world of facilities design doesn't revolve around the demands of high speed transportational bicyclists. what is this one, one hundreth of a percent of street in the community? In the case of poorly built facilities, best for a rider like Al to just ignore them. (Al probably already did. this might be one of those roads with a bike lane he's 'always' getting honked at when ignoring the bike lane?)



It is difficult for me to tell contextually if the facility works in that region. In the two pictures posted by Al, it seems like there already was a widely buffered bike facility alongside with more natural traffic mixing at the intersections.

I do agree that this level of facilties building seems excessive for the street traffic and etc. However, it ALREADY was a heavily accomodated road for some reason. School nearby perhaps?

The after pictures is just right hook collision waiting to happen. Personally I preffer the before picture. At least you have a choice of taking a lane so that someone won't turn in to you.

Tend to agree... the "after pic" is just way too much control... and way way too much for a 25MPH road.

I think the "before pic" would be nice perhaps on a 45MPH arterial, but the after pic... nowhere.

Tend to agree... the "after pic" is just way too much control... and way way too much for a 25MPH road.
One part of this design that is not apparent in the pic is that the curb separated chute only occurs just before the intersection. If the photographer had been standing a bit further back or using a wider angle lens, you would see that the normally designed bike lane feeds into this chute.

And of course I never get honked at on this 25mph road as it is designed today. Sure I use the 'primary' lane mostly, but if car is approaching from the rear I move over if safe (which is just about everywhere but at the few intersections.)

Al

One part of this design that is not apparent in the pic is that the curb separated chute only occurs just before the intersection. If the photographer had been standing a bit further back or using a wider angle lens, you would see that the normally designed bike lane feeds into this chute.

And of course I never get honked at on this 25mph road as it is designed today. Sure I use the 'primary' lane mostly, but if car is approaching from the rear I move over if safe (which is just about everywhere but at the few intersections.)

Al

In that case, the chute is totally not needed... and in fact makes the right hook problem somewhat worse. It is amazing that this application is on a 25MPH road.

In that case, the chute is totally not needed... and in fact makes the right hook problem somewhat worse. It is amazing that this application is on a 25MPH road.
More amazing to me is there are some folks here who think it is an acceptable, useable and safe design.

I attached a top view of this chute design.

Al

Well, for all that some cyclists may not be happy with the new arangement, the second picture sure seems more pleasant from a pedestrian perspective. If they're doing this for pedestrians and less confident cyclists (tends to be more of them than of more confident cyclists), that may positively affect a greater number of people and perhaps your city wants to go for high volume.

I really cannot form an opinion myself. I do not believe there is any such thing as one-size-fits-all transportational facilities, and they should be tailored to the needs of the area in question.

I attached a top view of this chute design.

Al

Yup, looks pretty dumb to me.

Well, for all that some cyclists may not be happy with the new arangement, the second picture sure seems more pleasant from a pedestrian perspective. If they're doing this for pedestrians and less confident cyclists (tends to be more of them than of more confident cyclists), that may positively affect a greater number of people and perhaps your city wants to go for high volume.

I really cannot form an opinion myself. I do not believe there is any such thing as one-size-fits-all transportational facilities, and they should be tailored to the needs of the area in question.

Since when has a false sense of security ever benefitted any inexperienced cyclist? Using that bike lane is equivalent to riding on the sidewalk baseed on where it positions you in relation to the rest of traffic. Do you think these less confident cyclists know that they need to stop at the stop sign even though they really aren't on the main roadway any more? Of course, if every cyclist who rode on the sidewalk or in bikelanes striped all the way to intersections knew to yield to every other vehicle at that intersection before proceeding, right hooks would not be an issue. The problem is that even experienced cyclists might get the wrong hint from a motorist and think they have been yielded to, then the motorist proceeds to turn across their path.

I hate landscaped bulb-outs. Austin tried those on Shoal Creek, and what it did was force bicyclists out of the bike lane, smack into the center of the road every 100 yards or so. The city spend about 400 grand putting those things in, and about 400 grand taking them out when there were so many complaints and safety issues.

"Traffic calming" to me in my experience is a set of words which mean "lets make the road more hazardous to everyone who uses it, be it bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorists." Instead, use of better lane marking, bike route signs, sidewalks, and crosswalks protected by stoplights are a better way to go than adding obstacles on a road.

I hate landscaped bulb-outs. Austin tried those on Shoal Creek, and what it did was force bicyclists out of the bike lane, smack into the center of the road every 100 yards or so. The city spend about 400 grand putting those things in, and about 400 grand taking them out when there were so many complaints and safety issues.

So they built the bulb-outs into a marked bike lane cutting it up into 100 yard sections? Got pics?

Ok so what is up with the Ramp of death?
I mean they made it harder to pedal.

Ok the choker or whatever they call it I feel like I am in left feild.
Keep in mind it is hard to pedal in this. One slip and bang on the high curb.
It is really hard to see traffic comming from the left.

Notice the frikin jeep nice.

Ok here is what and where they need a bicycle lane.
The pic. With a bridge is a good example of how to install a bike lane.

Here's why you'll get right hooked.

Without you in the picture, the motorist will drive faster to that corner. Since you are off to the side, he may not see you because he'll be distracted by the stop sign while scanning for other traffic.

As a motorist you can't go faster around that corner because it is too square. Rounded corners allow for faster and more careless turns.

And Al, if you are currently ignoring this with no ill-effects, why do you care? I'll betcha for every guy like you who ignores it there are 10 grateful mothers whose kids don't ignore it.

Personally, I would probably ride in it on my trike and ride outside it on my upright bike. Every place where I have choices like that I alternate between the options depending on my mood. Sometimes I do enjoy a leisurely amble down a quiet street like this in the separated path. Sometimes I don't.

In the grand scheme of bike things, this little street isn't going to hurt you. If anything, it gives the poor sun-stroked cyclist a respite from the hot Arizona sun by positioning you under some shady trees.

And Al, if you are currently ignoring this with no ill-effects, why do you care? I'll betcha for every guy like you who ignores it there are 10 grateful mothers whose kids don't ignore it.

Personally, I would probably ride in it on my trike and ride outside it on my upright bike. Every place where I have choices like that I alternate between the options depending on my mood. Sometimes I do enjoy a leisurely amble down a quiet street like this in the separated path. Sometimes I don't.

In the grand scheme of bike things, this little street isn't going to hurt you. If anything, it gives the poor sun-stroked cyclist a respite from the hot Arizona sun by positioning you under some shady trees.
You don't get it. It doesn't 'hurt' me*, but it puts focus and energy on 'improving' existing facilities that don't need any improvment while there are hundreds of streets with fast dense traffic and narrow outside lanes that are used by me, by kids, by fast and leisurely recreational and transportational cyclist. If folks want no traffic rides, there are plenty of MUPs, canal routes, etc. that can be used. This proposed (not the completed one) stretch (between several 45mph arterials with narrow outside lanes) doesn't connect to any of them.

*And it does affect me - now with the choker and sidepath, if I don't use it I am more likely to get honked at and in places they put these in where there is no intersection, if I am in lane and a faster same direction vehicle comes, I can't move over into bike lane to let them pass.

I also believe it is more dangerous for inexperienced cyclists. Just my opinion, no data of course, but it creates obsticals that must be navigated and an illusion of traffic separation.
Al

As a motorist you can't go faster around that corner because it is too square. Rounded corners allow for faster and more careless turns.
Wrong. Look at the attachment again, the corner is very well radiused for fast turning.
http://www.bikeforums.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=32096&d=1166115052
Al

The pic.
Thanks for the pics! I have a video of riding thru here I was gonna take some frames from and post, but no need any more. ;)

Al

Standard street sweepers can't fit through the narrow channel. It will never be maintained. Pedestrians will use it for their own purposes.

I could see how it would be useful for a small child if the entire street was lined with the channel, but having only the intersection lined with it is a recipe for disaster. People turning right will not be looking in that direction, and even if they do they will assume they have the ROW -- because they're in the almighty car. In any event, its silly to assume that that same child will never need to make a LEFT turn.

Whether you're for or against bike lanes or similar contrivances, this particular one is a bad design and a waste of money.

Whether you're for or against bike lanes or similar contrivances, this particular one is a bad design and a waste of money.
But for some reason Diane will support it anyway - which I don't get, as she talks about how the only reason us anti-BL-stripe folks don't like the stripe is because we've never seen good bike lane designs like in SB and that the stripe always ends before intersections in SB. Then a horrible design like this is shown and she glowingly supports it. Makes me wonder if she thinks about what she is supporting.
Al

Yea no problem.
I even see people riding their bicycles on the sidewalk on this road.


I just cut up one street north and avoid this crap.

It all makes sense when you realize that the true purpose of bike facilities is to make the roads faster and more convenient for motor traffic. That's why they don't improve the arterials, which, as Al pointed out, are actually in need of improvement (from a cyclist's perspective).

I kind of agree with you, Al. College is like cyclist heaven already, and the arterials going E-W like Southern and Broadway are cyclist hell-- fast and potentially deadly. I wish they would work on calming THOSE streets.

I think 20.25.30 mph speed humps work better. I never seen other any bicycle facilitiy slow traffic down to the speed limit, or deter a motor from riding on the road in the first place.

Of course on Bike BLVDs where you want slow traffic.

In Phoenix I found out Phoenix will install a speed hump for 1200 dollars, and the residents who ask for it don't have to disclose where they got the money.

It all makes sense when you realize that the true purpose of bike facilities is to make the roads faster and more convenient for motor traffic. That's why they don't improve the arterials, which, as Al pointed out, are actually in need of improvement (from a cyclist's perspective).
Bingo. It's sad that the LAB and many "bike advocacy" groups are really just shills for the interests of bike dealers (to sell bikes for use on trails) and the automobile lobby (to stripe lanes to keep cyclists from slowing down cars). That's why so many so-called "bike advocacy" groups don't oppose mandatory bike lane use laws.

poor design of a facilty on a slow street in Arizona aside,

what kind of misstated hokum is that, daily commute?

Attempting to collude the LAB as a 'shill' for bike dealers and the auto lobby.- what a crock. you are full of it, daily commute.

Bike shops -'dealers' - don't sell bikes just "For use on trails"- that's not the business model of any full service bike shop I've ever been in.

Most bike manufacturers, distributors or retailers don't limit or focus their sales of bikes soley for "trail use". that is soo far removed from reality, Daily Commute, it smacks of slanderous misrepresentation of the bike industry.

Most bike advocacy groups I'm familiar with fight mandatory sidepath use laws.

On-road bike lane regs are an entirely different animal and most states use 'as far right as practicable' rules that are written to provide numerous and sundry exemptions if a bike lane is unusable.

Cyclists rights to travel in the main travel lanes if a bike lane is not useable is not impeded by most (all?) states regs on bike travel on roads, bike lane stripe or not. This right and permissive writing of state statutes regarding bicycling have been fought FOR vociferously by most bike advocacy groups, so a bicyclist is NOT restricted to using a bike lane.

Such misinformation you spew, Daily Commute.

I'm sorry you don't understand my "support." I don't actually suppor this project; I simply don't have any objection to it. I don't think it looks all that awful. I probably wouldn't choose to ride there myself but it certainly doesn't look as horrible as you all seem to think it is.

Seems to me that many communities everywhere are getting fed up with the problem of speeding traffic and trying all sorts of things to solve it. Some of the solutions succeed, some of them fail. I live on a street with traffic calming that in my opinion is a failure (speed humps--the faster you go the less you notice them). Eventually they'll find something that works. Meanwhile you just have to go about your life as best you can and stop whining about every little inconvenience to you.

It all makes sense when you realize that the true purpose of bike facilities is to make the roads faster and more convenient for motor traffic. That's why they don't improve the arterials, which, as Al pointed out, are actually in need of improvement (from a cyclist's perspective).

While indeed this is true, what would you suggest otherwise for road improvement that does not impede motor vehicles... taking into consideration that we cyclists represent a very tiny minority on the road.

Yeah, bike lanes are far from perfect, but I'll take them over nothing... and that "nothing" also includes plain WOL, because a plain WOL does nothing to inform the motorists that I am on the road, I plan on being on the road, and I may just be on the road right ahead of them... at a minimum that is all Bike Lanes and the associated signs do.

Personally I would much rather have a nice harmonious roadway where motorists and cyclists are treated as equals, and extraneous lines don't exist, but I have noticed that when ordinary folks get behind the wheel of a car, often they believe they own the road. (frankly, I think the frustration of being trapped in a little box does it to them... but that is another thread)

I also find it somewhat frustrating that motorists feel they have to race from one location to another... the heck with speed limits or anything else in their way.

Want proof of that latter statement... drive on any road at less than the posted speed limit and watch the motorists behind you... their "impending madness" is quite amusing. Yet honestly it is only a few scant seconds that one might "save" while at the same time putting one's life at risk by such behaviour. (speeding, and other reckless driving, as typically displayed on American roads).

In fact, if there is any one message I wish motorists would take for the New Year it would simply be "slow down," really, what ever you are rushing to will probably be there when you get there anyway... Slow down and enjoy life.

Studies have shown that narrower roads slow motor traffic and reduce accidents for motorists, pedestrians and cyclists. Bike lanes can create the perception of a narrower road to motorists while actually creating more space for cyclists.

Some 25 mph streets suffer from speeding traffic, sometimes as fast as freeway traffic. I know this because I live on such a 25 mph street that would otherwise have 60 mph traffic on it even with a school zone. With traffic calming measures traffic only goes up to 40 mph now, which is still way too fast here.

Studies have shown that narrower roads slow motor traffic and reduce accidents for motorists, pedestrians and cyclists. Bike lanes can create the perception of a narrower road to motorists while actually creating more space for cyclists.

You have created the impression that bike lanes slow down traffic. Are you aware of any studies that show this to be the case? It's just as likely that bike lanes increase motor traffic speeds, rather than decrease them. My perception is that cagers drive faster and closer when they see that magical stripe, but they more often slow down (and move over) when they must share a lane with cyclists. As I've said before, the main purpose of so-called bicycle facilities is to expedite the flow of motor traffic.